Department of Architecture
2007 ANNUAL REPORT
to the
National Architectural Accrediting
Board
June 17, 2007
Table of Contents
PART I
RESPONSE TO CONCERNS STATED IN THE
PREVIOUS VISITING TEAM REPORT
Conditions Not Met
A. Physical Resources……………….................................................…….
page 1
B. Professional Degrees & Curriculum..............................................…
page x
Student Performance Criteria Not Met
C. Construction Cost Control.....................................................................
page x
D. Architect’s Administrative Roles……………........................................
page 3
E. Architectural Practice…………………………........................................
page 3
F. Legal Responsibilities…………………………........................................
page 3
Causes of Concern
G. Exposure to Modernism in History/Theory Sequence........................
page 3
H. Structure of Elective Courses.................................................................
page 3
I. Faculty Participation in Strategic Planning ...........................................
page 3
I. More Emphasis on Speaking, Writing, Critical Thinking & Research.
page 3
PART II
REPORT OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
A. Addition of General Studies Credits........................................……...…
page 4
PART III
2006-07 NAAB STATISTICAL REPORT
2006-07 NAAB Statistical Report. ..............................................................
page x
PART I
RESPONSE TO CONCERNS STATED IN THE
PREVIOUS VISITING TEAM REPORT
A. Physical Resources
There are three areas that raise the level of concern with respect to this condition:
1. The shop is a challenge from several aspects. It is not an accessible space. Although it was explained to the visiting
team at the shop that students needed to take a safety orientation before being cleared to use the equipment, students
made it clear that they had to enroll in a shop-related class and complete the class prior to this clearance. The classes
are not designed for architectural students. The department is making strides in planning for extended shop hours,
but this has not yet taken effect. The location of the shop off a dark alley is likely to prove a discouragement against
evening and night use. The limitation on shop use is apparent in student work, little of which exhibits model-making
at the scale or complexity that could be afforded. COMAD has applied for a grant for rapid prototype modeling
equipment, but it is not clear to what degree this equipment would be offered to architectural students or where it
would be housed.
Increased hours
2. Plotting and printing facilities for all students are a critical issue. This is addressed in a satisfactory way for
students in the first two years of the 2+4 program, in that a common plotter is provided for these students in the
center of the studio area at 3021 Arch Street. As soon as these students move on to the third year and join other
students in the night study program, this opportunity is lost. There is an assumption that students will be able to
use plotters and printers at their places of work, but in practice this is not always the case. Some firms allow use
while others prohibit it, and there are discrepancies in technology available at these offices. This places some
students at a disadvantage. The department is encouraged to find a solution at the campus that affords all students
the same access to printing and plotting technology.
Plotting in Main Building
3. The requirement that students be afforded space: “… including design studio space for the exclusive use of each
student in a studio class,” has not been successfully met for the students in the night program. The particularities of
this program suggest a different response than what is customarily found in the studio environment where each
student is assigned a full studio station, but the students notice the disadvantages posed by having to bring their
work for each class or crit and then take the work back with them, without a “home base” of any type. Not only is
working studio space missed by students in the 2+4 program who have left such a space after the second year, but
night program students also feel the lack. The department should strive to find creative ways, such as flexible work
space for students outside of class, and dedicated storage, such as student lockers, to satisfy this important aspect of
this condition within the unique parameters of this program.
Nothing in this area.
B.
Professional Degrees & Curriculum
The curricula of both tracks of the B.Arch. program comprise professional studies, general studies, and electives. In
the fall of 2003, the total units for the degree program were raised from192 to 209 with the intent to meet the NAAB
requirement of 225 units before 2015. Of the 209 required units, 48 are university requirements ( general studies ),
87 are in the studio/thesis sequence, and 74 are in architectural studies. The program curriculum is 19.5 units short
of the 67.5 quarter-unit requirement for general studies.
Responding to this curriculum requirement received the highest priority this year. Last summer and fall
the Curriculum Committee developed a strategy to respond to these points. To meet the 19.5 credit
shortfall in General Studies credits, 12 general studies credits will be added to the degree requirements,
and to replace the General Lecture Series ( ARCH 321,322,323 ) with 9 additional general studies credits.
These two changes raise the total credits in the B.Arch. program from 209 to 221, while assigning 21
additional credits to general studies. The 21 new credits in General Studies raised that total to 69 credits,
thus fulfilling the General Studies requirement with 1.5 credits to spare.
General Studies Required Courses
English
Math
Physics
University Seminar
Evening Program
9 credits
9 credits
9 credits
General Studies Required Electives
Humanities
Ethics for Architects ( PHILxxx )
Social Sciences
Free Electives
Total
2+4 Option
9 credits
8 credits
8 credits
2 credits
6 credits
3 credits
9 credits
24 credits
6 credits
3 credits
9 credits
24 credits
69 credits
69 credits
Having met the shortfall of General Studies credits this year, The Curriculum Committee will turn its
attention to the four credit shortfall in total credits next year by addressing the interesting challenge of
satisfying Professional Practice Performance Criteria in a Work Study Program.
C.
Faculty Involvement in Strategic Planning
The lack of full faculty participation in strategic planning for the department – especially regarding the ongoing
development of the curriculum, coupled with the fact that many faculty have been with the program for a
considerable time, suggests that the program has immediate issues to contend with and that there is also a need to
plan for the not-distant future when search for new faculty will be undertaken. Students commented on both the
strength and the sameness or similarity of the faculty. This will present both a significant challenge as well as an
opportunity to the department in the near term.
Faculty participation in strategic planning.
New Auxiliary Faculty in Representation.
D. Room for Improvement in Writing, Critical Thinking & Research Criteria
While there is evidence that the Speaking and Writing, Critical Thinking and Research criteria were met, there is
much room for improvement. The team agreed that more emphasis should be placed on these criteria across the
curriculum. One promising sign in this direction is the proposal of a policy to require all architecture students to
take the information literacy course in the library
Thesis
2
PART II
REPORT OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
A. Credits
At the beginning of the 2003-04 academic year the total required credits for the Bachelor of Architecture
degree were raised from 192 to 209 quarter credits. The process and the reasons for these changes,
primarily in upper level studios, were discussed fully in the 2003 Annual Report. The credit increase was
given final approval by the Faculty Senate Committee on Academic Affairs in late May 2003, and the
student body received official notice of the changes in the department’s annual summer memo in July
2003. Predictably, many students were upset by an increase in required credits since tuition for part-time
students is charged by the credit. Most could agree with the need to equate the Drexel program with
other B.Arch. programs, and the need to validate the demands of upper level studios. However, many
also interpreted the increased credits as a distinct rise in the cost of their education with no corresponding
improvement in its quality. To air opinions in a formal setting the AIAS Chapter scheduled a general
discussion on the issue at its October Meeting. This meeting began with a presentation by Department
Head Paul Hirshorn about the rationale behind the credit changes, followed by a question and answer
session, and a frank and open discussion on a variety of issues.
Causes of Concern
E. Exposure to Modernism in History/Theory Sequence
The department does a fine job of exposing students to the historical canon of Western architecture and also to nonWestern traditions, with a rich program of architectural history and theory classes, as well as study of precedents in
the studio context. One outcome of this positive attribute of the program is that is possible for a student to miss the
study of modernism in class work. The fact that modernism is studied in the studio is important, but an approach
might be considered to achieve balance in history and theory curricula so that this important aspect of architectural
history is not given short shrift.
F. Structure of Elective Courses
Structure of the elective courses: some of the criteria which the Visiting Team noted were not met would be satisfied
by electives. Course selection is set up so that a student might be able to avoid any professional electives.
G. Faculty Participation on Strategic Planning
The lack of full faculty participation in strategic planning for the department – especially regarding the ongoing
development of the curriculum, coupled with the fact that many faculty have been with the program for a
considerable time, suggests that the program has immediate issues to contend with and that there is also a need to
plan for the not-distant future when search for new faculty will be undertaken. Students commented on both the
strength and the sameness or similarity of the faculty. This will present both a significant challenge as well as an
opportunity to the department in the near term.
H. More Emphasis on Speaking Writing, Critical Thinking and Research
While there is evidence that the Speaking and Writing, Critical Thinking and Research criteria were met, there is
much room for improvement. The team agreed that more emphasis should be placed on these criteria across the
curriculum. One promising sign in this direction is the proposal of a policy to require all architecture students to
take the information literacy course in the library.
13.25
Construction Cost Control
This criterion has not been met. The subjects under cost control are generally included in
electives rather than in required coursework. Although some students no doubt develop
this understanding in their work experience, it is clear that student experiences vary
widely. There is not an effective means for either the department or the Visiting Team to
confirm that this understanding is developed by all students in the program. There is little
in the way of cost control material in the Architectural Construction course, and although
these topics may be covered in some thesis projects, it is by no means clear that this is true
of all thesis work. The program should have a number of means available to address this
concern.
13.29
Architect’s Administrative Roles
Exposure to the issues involved with the architect’s administrative roles is typically found
in the Management Seminar. While the course content is comprehensive, it exists only as a
professional elective. Because of the way that electives are structured, it is possible for a
student not only to miss this important course content but to avoid or bypass the
professional electives entirely (by focusing of history and other electives). While this topic
may be augmented through work experience, there is no evidence that all students develop
this understanding through the class, the studio, or the work setting.
13.30
Architectural Practice
As with the Architect’s Administrative Roles, topics of Architectural Practice are covered in
a comprehensive manner only in the electives in the two-class Management Seminar.
Again, this understanding may be developed by many in the work setting, but the
department has not yet developed an effective means to track or verify this experience and
the understanding derived from it.
4
2006-07 NAAB STATISTICAL REPORT
2007 NAAB STATISTICAL REPORT
SCHOOL: Drexel University
ACSA REGION: EC
NE
SE
Completed by: Paul Hirshorn
SW
WC
W
(circle one)
PUBLIC or PRIVATE (circle one)
STUDENT DATA
B.Arch
B.Arch
**PreProf
Five-year
**PostPreProf
Five-year
325
182
365
325
193
23
Students Working Part-Time
Outside Stud. Serv. by Dept.
African-American Students
Native American Students*
Asian/Pacific Isle Students
0
18
15
128
0
Hispanic Origin Studentst
Women Students
Foreign Students
Total Degrees Awarded
Grads. Fin. Estb. No. Yrs.
46
40
Degrees Awarded to Women
Degrees Awarded to Afri-Amer
Degrees Awarded to Amer. Ind.
17
1
0
Degrees Awarded to Asi/Pac. Isl.
Degrees Awarded Hispanics
Enrollment Target/Goal
Student Studio/Faculty Ratio
**PostNonProf
53
Full-Time Students
Part-Time Students
FTE Students
Arch Design Studio Students
Min Req. SAT/ACT/GRE Score
Number of Applicants
Number Accepted
For Accredited Programs Only
B.Arch
M.Arch
4 Year
1
3
1200*
725*
88*
NA
91
51
28*
40
8.83
*full-time, 2+4 Option
*Includes Eskimos and Aleuts
**Includes four-year program component of 4+1 yrs. B.Arch degree and 4+2 yrs. M.Arch degree.
***Non-Professional: baccalaureate degree that is not part of an accredited professional program.
FACILITY/RESOURCE DATA
Departmental Library LCNA or 720-729 Collection
Total Architecture Collection in Departmental Library
University Library LCNA or 720-729 Collection
Total Architecure Collectoin in University Library
Departmental Library Architecture Slides
University Library Archiecture Slides
Departmental Library Architecture Videos
Staff in Dept. Library
Number of Computer Stations
Amount Spent on Information Technology
Annual Budget for Library Resources
Per-Capita Financial Support Received from University
Private Outside Monies Received by Source
Studio Area (Net Sq. ft.)
Total Area (Gross Sq. ft.)
SCHOOL: Drexel University
NA
NA
8297
34,594
33,000
NA
100
NA
142
NA
$29,650
$6,106
$8,362
9715
15770
Completed by: Paul Hirshorn
M.Arch
M.Arch
**PostPreProf
**PostNonProf
FULL-TIME FACULTY SALARIES
Number
Minimum
Average
Maximum
Univ. Avg.
Professor
1
$118,732
Associate Professor
Assistant Professor
Instructor
2
0
2
$92,145
$83,607
$53,365
FACULTY DATA
Department Total
Full-Time Faculty
Part-Time Faculty
5
64
Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Faculty
14.9
Tenure Faculty
Tenure-Track Positions
NO. FULL-TIME FACULTY CREDENTIALS
Ph.D.
1
3
D. Arch
3
M.A. or S.
FTE Administrative Positions
1.5
Prof. M. Arch
Faculty Engaged in Service to Comm.
34
B. Arch
Faculty Engaged in Servive to Univ.
18
Post Prof. Masters
FT Faculty who are U.S. Licensed Registered Architects
4
PT Faculty who are U.S. Licensed Registered Architects
Practicing Architects
46
45
FTE Graduate TA s
4
Other
0
FT Faculty Avg. Contact Hrs/Wk
9.73
PT Faculty Avg. Contact Hrs/Wk
3.34
African-American Faculty
Native American Faculty*
Asian/Pacific Island Faculty
FT
0
0
0
PT
3
0
4
Tenured
0
0
0
Prof.
0
0
0
Assoc.
0
0
0
Assist.
0
0
0
Hispanic Origin Faculty
Women Faculty
0
1
0
10
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
*Include Eskimos and Aleuts